Datasets:
timotheeplanes
/
doping

Dataset card Data Studio Files
xet
 Community
1
text
stringlengths
1
17.8k
WAKO Anti-Doping Rules Page 32 of 81 Article 8 Results management : right to a fair hearing and notice of hearing decision For any Person who is asserted to have commi tted an anti -doping rule violation, WAKO shall provide a fair hearing within a reasonable time by a fair, impartial and Operationally Independent hearing panel in compliance with the Code and the International Standard for Results Management .
8.1 Fair Hea rings 8.1.1 Fair, Impar tial and Operationally Independent Hearing Panel 8.1.1.1 WAKO shall establish a Hearing Panel the WAKO Doping Hearing Panel which has jurisdiction to hear and determine whether an Athlete or other Person, subject to these Anti -Doping Rules, has committed an anti -doping rule violation and, if applicable, to impose relevant Consequences.
8.1.1.2 WAKO shall ensure that the WAKO Doping Hea ring Panel is free of conflict of interest and that its composition, term of office, profession al experience, Operationa l Independence and adequate financing comply with the requirements of the International Standard for Results Management .
8.1.1.3 Board members, staff members, commission members, consultants and officials of WAKO or its affiliate s (e.g.
National Federati ons or confederation), as well as any Person involved in the investigation and pre -adjudication of the matter, cannot be a ppointed as members and/or clerks (to the extent that such clerk is involved in the deliberation process and/ or drafting of any decisi on) of the WAKO Doping Hearing Panel.
In particular, no member shall have previously considered any TUE application, Resul ts Management decision, or appeals in the same given case.
8.1.1.4 The WAKO Doping Hearing Panel shall cons ist of an independent Cha ir and four (4) other independent members.
8.1.1.5 Each member shall be appointed by taking into consideration their requisite anti -doping experience including their legal, sports, medical and/or scientific expertise.
Each membe r shall be appointed for a once renewable term of three (3) years.
8.1.1.6 The WAKO Doping Hearing Panel shall be in a posi tion to conduct the hearing and decision -making process without interference from WAKO or any third party.
WAKO Anti-Doping Rules Page 33 of 81 8.1.2 Hearing Process 8.1.2.1 When WAKO sends a notice to an Athlete or other Person notifying them of a potential anti -doping rule violation, and the Athlete or other Person does not waive a hearing in accordance with Article 8.3.1 or Article 8.3.2, then the case shall be re ferred to the WAKO Doping Hearing Panel for hearing and adjudicat ion, which shall be conducted in accordance with the principles described in Articles 8 and 9 of the International Standard for Results Management .
8.1.2.2 The Chair shall appoint either th ree (3) members (which ma y include the Chair) or a single adjudic ator, which can be the Chair, to hear that case, depending on the nature of the charge and the evidence put forward.
When three members are appointed to hear a case, one (1) panel member shal l be a qualified lawyer, with no less than three (3) years of relevant legal experience, and one (1) panel member shall be a qualified medical practitioner, with no less than three (3) years of relevant medical experience.
If a single adjudicator is appoin ted, he/she shall have a legal background.
8.1.2.3 Upon appoint ment by the Chair as a member of the WAKO Doping Hearing Panel, each member must also sign a declaration that there are no facts or circumstances known to him or her which might call into que stion their impartiality in the eyes of any of the parties, other than those circumstances disclosed in the declaration.
8.1.2.4 Hearings held in connection with Event s in respect to Athletes and other Persons who are subject to these Anti -Doping Rules m ay be conducted by an exp edited process where permitted by the WAKO Doping Hearing Panel.36 8.1.2.5 WADA, the National Federation and the National Anti -Doping Organization of the Athlete or other Person may attend the hearing as observers.
In any event, W AKO shall keep them fully apprised as to the status of pending cases and the result of all hearings.
36 [Comment to Article 8.1.2.4: For example, a hearing could be expedited on the eve of a major Ev ent where the resolution of the anti-doping rule violation is necessary to determine the Athlete 's eligibility to participate in the Event, or during an Event where the resolution of the case will affect the validity of th e Athlete 's results or continued p articipation in the Event.]
WAKO Anti-Doping Rules Page 34 of 81 8.2 Notice of Decisions 8.2.1 At the end of the hearing, or promptly thereafter, the WAKO Doping Hearing Panel shall issue a written decision that con forms with Article 9 of t he International Standard for Results Management and which includes the full reasons for the decision, the peri od of Ineligibility imposed, the Disqualification of results under Article 10.10 and, if applicable, a justification for why the greatest potenti al Consequences were not imposed.
8.2.2 WAKO shall notify that decision to the Athlete or other Person and to other Anti-Doping Organizations with a right to appeal under Article 13.2.3, and shall promptly report it into ADAMS .
The decision may be appeale d as provided in Article 13.
8.3 Waiver of Hearing 8.3.1 An Athlete or other Person against whom an anti-doping violation is asserted may waive a hearing expressly and agree with the Consequences proposed by WAKO.
8.3.2 Howev er, if the Athlete or oth er Person against whom an anti -doping rule violation is asserted fails to dispute that assertion within twenty (20) days or the deadline otherwise specified in the notice sent by the WAKO asserting the violation, then they shall be deemed to have waived a hearing, t o have admitted the violation, and to have accepted the proposed Consequences .
8.3.3 In cases where Article 8.3.1 or 8.3.2 applies, a hearing before the WAKO Doping Hearing Panel shall not be required.
Instead WAKO shall promptly issue a writte n decision that conforms with Article 9 of the International Standard for Results Management and which includes the full reasons for the decision, the period of Ineligibility imposed, the Disqualification of results under Article 1 0.10 and, if applicable, a justific ation for why the greatest potential Consequences were not imposed.
8.3.4 WAKO shall notify that decision to the Athlete or other Person and to other Anti-Doping Organizations with a right to appeal under Article 13.2.3, and shall promptly repor t it into ADAMS .
WAKO shall Publicly Disclose that decision in accordance with Article 14.3.2.
8.4 Single Hearing Before CAS Anti-doping rule violations asserted against International -Level Athletes , National -Level Athletes or other Persons may, with the consent of the Athlete or other Person , WAKO (where it has Results Management responsibility in accordance with Article 7) and WADA , be heard in a single hearing directly at CAS.37 37 [Comment to Article 8.4: In some cases, the combined cost of holding a hearing in the first instance at the international or national level, then rehearing the case de novo before CAS can be very substantial.
Where all of th e parties identified in this Art icle are satisfied that their interests will be adequately protected in a single hearing, there is no need for the Athlete or Anti -Doping Organizations to incur the extra expense of WAKO Anti-Doping Rules Page 35 of 81 Article 9 Automatic Disqualification of individual results An anti -doping rule violation in Individual Sports in connection with an In-Competition test automatically leads to Disqualification of the result obtained in that Competition with all resulting Consequences , including forfeiture of any medals, p oints and prizes.38 Article 10 Sanctions on individuals 10.1 Disqualification of Results in the Event during which an Anti -Doping Rule Violation Occurs 10.1.1 An anti -doping rule violation occurring during or in connection with an Event may, upon the de cision of the ruling body of the Event , lead to Disqualification of all of the Athlete's individual results obtained in that Event with all Consequences , including forfeiture of all medals, points and prizes, except as provided in Article 10.1.2.
Factors to be included in consid ering whether to Disqualify other results in an Event might inc lude, for example, the seriousness of the Athlete’s anti-doping rule violation and whether the Athlete tested negative in the other Competitions .39 10.1.2 If the Athle te establishes that he or she bears No Fault or Negligence for the violation, the Athlete's individual results in the other Competitions shall not be Disqualified , unless the Athlete's results in Competitions other than the Competition in which the anti -doping rule violation occur red were likely to have been affe cted by the Athlete's anti-doping rule violation.
10.2 Ineligibility for Presence, Use or Attempted Use , or Possession of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method The period of Ineligibility for a violation of Article 2.1, 2.2 or 2.6 shall be as follo ws, subject to potential elimination, reduction or suspension pursuant to Article 10.5, 10.6 or 10.7: two (2) hearings .
An Anti -Doping Organizat ion may participate in the CAS h earing as an observer.
Nothing set out in Article 8.4 precludes the Athlete or other Person and WAKO (where it has Results Management responsibility) to waive their right to appeal by agreem ent.
Such waiver, however, only bi nds the parties to such agreemen t and not any other entity with a right of appeal under the Code.]
38 [Comment to Article 9: For Team Sports, any awards received by individual players will be Disqualified.
However, Disqualification of the team will be as provided in Article 11.
In sport s which are not Team Sports but where awards are given to teams, Disqua lification or other disciplinary action against the team when one or more team members have committed an anti -doping rule violation shall be as provided in the applicable rules of the I nternational Federation.]
39 [Comment to Article 10.1.1: Whereas Artic le 9 Disqualifies the result in a single Competition in which the Athlete tested positive (e.g., the 100 meter backstroke), this Article may lead to Disq ualification of all results in all races during the Event (e.g., the swimming World Championships).]
WAKO Anti-Doping Rules Page 36 of 81 10.2.1 The period of Ineligibility , subject to Article 10.2.4, shall be four (4) years where: 10.2.1.1 The anti -doping rule violation does not involve a Specified Substance or a Specified Method , unless the Athlete or other Person can establish that the anti -doping rule violation was not intentional.40 10.2.1.2 The anti -doping rule violation invo lves a Specified Substanc e or a Specified Method and WAKO can establish that the anti -doping rule violation was intentional.
10.2.2 If Article 10.2.1 does not apply, subject to Article 10.2.4.1, the period of Ineligibi lity shall be two (2) years.
10.2.
3 As used in Article 10.
2, the term “intentional” is meant to identify those Athletes or other Persons who engage in conduct which they knew constituted an anti -doping rule violation or knew that there was a significant risk that the conduct might constit ute or result in an anti -doping rule violation and manifestly disregarded that risk.
An anti -doping rule violation resulting from an Adverse Analytical Finding for a substance which is only prohibited In-Competition shall be rebuttably presumed to be not “ intentional” if the subst ance is a Specified Substance and the Athlete can establish that the Prohibited Substance was Used Out-of-Competition .
An anti -doping rule violation resulting from an Adverse Analytical Finding for a substance which is only prohibi ted In-Competition shall not be considered “intentional” if the substance is not a Specified Substance and the Athlete can establish that the Prohibited Substance was Used Out-of-Competition in a context unrelated to sport performance.41 10.2.4 Notwithsta nding any other provision in Article 10.2, where the anti -doping rule violation involves a Substance of Abuse : 10.2.4.1 If the Athlete can establish that any ingestion or Use occurred Out-of-Competition and was unrelated to sport performance, then the p eriod of Ineligibility shall be three (3) months Ineligibility .
In addition, the period of Ineligibility calculated under this Article 10.2.4.1 may be reduced to one (1) month if the 40 [Comment to Article 10.2.1.1: While it is theoretically possible for an Athlete or other Person to establish that the anti -doping rule violation was no t intentional without showing ho w the Prohibited Substance entered one’s system, it is highly unlikely that in a doping case under Article 2.1 an Athlete will be successful in proving that the Athlete acted unintentionally without establishing the source o f the Prohibited Substance.]
41 [Comment to Article 10.2.3: Article 10.2.3 provides a special definition of “intentional” which is to be applied solely for purposes of Article 10.2.]
WAKO Anti-Doping Rules Page 37 of 81 Athlete or other Person satisfactorily completes a Substance of Abuse treatment program approved by WAKO.
The period of Ineligibility established in this Article 10.2.4.1 is not subject to any reduction based on any provision in Article 10.6.42 10.2.4.2 If the ingestion, Use or Possession occurred In-Competition , and the Athlete can establish that t he context of the ingestion, Use or Possession was unrelated to sport performanc e, then the ingestion, Use or Possession shall not be considered intentional for purposes of Article 10.2.1 and shall not provide a basis for a finding of Aggravating Circumsta nces under Article 10.4.
10.3 Ineligibility for Other Anti-Doping Rule Violations The period of Ineligibility for anti -doping rule violations other than as provided in Article 10.2 shall be as follows, unless Article 10.6 or 10.
7 are applicable: 10.3.1 For violations of Article 2.3 or 2.5, the period of Ineligibility shall be four (4) years except: (i) in the case of failing to submit to Sample collection, if the Athlete can establish that the commission of the anti -doping rule violation was not intent ional, the period of Ineligibility shall be two (2) years; (ii) in all o ther cases, if the Athlete or other Person can establish exceptional circumstances that justify a reduction of the period of Ineligibility , the period of Ineligibility shall be in a ra nge from two (2) years to four (4) years depending on the Athlete or oth er Person ’s degree of Fault ; or (iii) in a case involving a Protected Person or Recreational Athlete , the period of Ineligibility shall be in a range between a maximum of two (2) years and, at a minimum, a reprimand and no period of Ineligibility , depending on the Protected Person or Recreational Athlete ’s degree of Fault .
10.3.2 For violations of Article 2.4, the period of Ineligi bility shall be two (2) years, subject to reduction dow n to a minimum of one (1) year, depending on the Athlete’s degree of Fault .
The flexibility between two (2) years and one (1) year of Ineligibility in this Article is not available to Athletes where a pattern of last -minute whereab outs changes or other con duct raises a serious suspicion that the Athlete was trying to avoid being available for Testing .
42 [Comment to Article 10.2.4.1: The determinations as to whether the tre atment program is approved and whether the Athlete or other Person has satisfactorily complete d the program shall be made in the sole discretion of WAKO.
This Article is intended to give WAKO the leeway to apply their own judgment to identify and approve l egitimate and reputable, as oppo sed to “sham”, treatment programs.
It is anticipated, however, that the characteristics of legitimate treatment programs may vary widely and change over time such that it would not be practical for WADA to develop mandatory criteria for acceptable treatmen t programs.]
WAKO Anti-Doping Rules Page 38 of 81 10.3.3 For violations of Article 2.7 or 2.8, the period of Ineligibility shall be a minimum of four (4) years up to lifetime Ineligibility , depending on th e seriousness of the violation.
An Article 2.7 or Article 2.8 violation involving a Protected Person shall be considered a particularly serious violation and, if committed by Athlete Support Personnel for violations other than for Specified Substances , sha ll result in lifetime Ineligibility for Athlete Support Personnel .
In addition, significant violations of Article 2.7 or 2.8 which may also violate non -sporting laws and regulations, shall be reported to the competent administrativ e, professional or judici al authorities.43 10.3.4 For violations of Article 2.9, the period of Ineligibility imposed shall be a minimum of two (2) years, up to lifetime Ineligibility , depending on the seriousness of the violation.
10.3.5 For violations o f Article 2.10, the perio d of Ineligibility shall be two (2) years, subject to reduction down to a minimum o f one (1) year, depending on the Athlete or other Person’s degree of Fault and other circumstances of the case.44 10.3.6 For violations of Article 2.11, the period of Ineligibility shall be a minimum of two (2) years, up to lifetime Ineligibility , depending on the seriousness of the violation by the Athlete or other Person .45 10.4 Aggravating Circumstances which may Increase the Period of Ineligibili ty If WAKO establishes in an individual case involving an anti -doping rule violation other than violations under Article 2.7 ( Trafficking or Attempted Trafficking ), 2.8 (Administration or Attempted Administration ), 2.9 (Complicity or Attempted Complicity ) or 2.11 (Ac ts by an Athlete or Other Person to Discourage or Retaliate Against Reporting) that Aggravating Circumstances are present which justify the imposition of a period of Ineligibility greater than the standard sanction, then the period of Ineligib ility otherwi se applicabl e shall be increased by an additional period of Ineligibility of up to two (2) years depending on the seriousness of the violation and 43 [Comment to Article 10.3.3: Those who are invo lved in doping Athletes or covering up doping should be subject to sanctions which are more severe than the Athletes who test positive.
Since the authority of spo rt organizations is generally li mited to Ineligibility for accreditation, membership and other sport benefits, reporting Athlete Support Personnel to competent authorities is an important step in the deterrence of doping.]
44 [Comment to Article 10.3.5: W here the “other Person” referenc ed in Article 2.10 is an entity and not an individual, that entity may be disciplined as provided in Article 12.]
45 [Comment to Article 10.3.6: Conduct that is found to violate both Article 2.5 (Tampering) and Article 2.11 (Acts by an Athlete or Other Pe rson to Discourage or Retaliate Against Rep orting to Authorities) shall be sanctioned based on the violation that carries the more severe sanction.]
WAKO Anti-Doping Rules Page 39 of 81 the nature of the Aggravating Circumstances , unless the Athlete or other Person can establish th at he or she did not know ingly commit the anti -doping rule violation.46 10.5 Elimination of the Period of Ineligibility where there is No Fault or Negligence If an Athlete or other Person establishes in an individual case that he or she bears No Fault or Negligence , then the othe rwise applicable period of Ineligibility shall be eliminated.47 10.6 Reduction of the Period of Ineligibility based on No Significant Fault or Negligence 10.6.1 Reduction of Sanctions in Particular Circumstances for Violations of Article 2.1, 2.2 or 2.6.
All reductions under Article 10.6.1 are mutually exclusive and not cumulative.
10.6.1.1 Specified Substances or Specified Methods Where the anti -doping rule violation involves a Specified Substance (other than a Substance of Abuse ) or Specified Metho d, and the Athlete or other Person can establish No Significant Fault or Negligence , then the period of Ineligibility shall be, at a min imum, a reprimand and no period of Ineligibility , and at a maximum, two (2) years of Ineligibil ity, depending on the Athlete’s or other Person’s degree of Fault .
46 [Comment to Article 10.4: Violations under Articles 2.7 (Trafficking or Attempted Trafficking), 2.8 (Adm inistration or Attempted Administration), 2 .9 (Complicity or Attempted Complicity) and 2.11 (Acts by an Athlete or Other Person to Discourage or Retaliate Against Reporting to Authorities) are not included in the application of Article 10.4 because the san ctions for these violations already build i n sufficient discretion up to a lifetime ban to allow consideration of any Aggravating Circumstance.]
47 [Comment to Article 10.5: This Article and Article 10.6.2 apply only to the imposition of sanctions; they a re not applicable to the determination of whether an anti -doping rule violation has occurred.
They will only apply in exceptional circumstances, for example, where an Athlete could prove that, despite all due care, he or she was sabotaged by a competitor.
Conversely, No Fault or Negligence would not apply in the following circumstances: (a) a positive test resulting from a mislabelled or contaminated vitamin or nutritional supplement (Athletes are responsible for what they in gest (Article 2.1) and have been warned against the possibility of supplement contamination); (b) the Administration of a Prohibited Substance by the Athlete’s personal physician or trainer without disclosure to the Athlete (Athletes are responsible for their choice of medical personnel and for advising medical personnel that they cannot be given any Prohibited Substance); and (c) sabotage of the Athlete’s food or drink by a spouse, coach or other Person within the Athlete’s circle of associates (Athletes a re responsible for what they ing est and for the conduct of those Persons to whom they entrust access to their food and drink).
However, depending on the unique facts of a particular case, any of the referenced illustrations could result in a reduced sancti on under Article 10.6 based on N o Significant Fault or Negligence.]
WAKO Anti-Doping Rules Page 40 of 81 10.6.1.2 Contaminated Products In cases where the Athlete or other Person can establish both No Significant Fault or Negligence and that the detected Prohibited Substance (other than a Substance of Abuse ) came from a Contaminated Product , then the period of Ineligibility shall be, at a minimum, a reprimand and no period of Ineligibility , and at a maximum, two (2) years Ineligibility , depending on the Athlete or other Person’s degree of Fault.48 10.6.1.3 Protect ed Persons or Recreational Athletes Where the anti -doping rule violation not involving a Substance of Abuse is committed by a Protected Person or Recreational Athlete , and the Protected Person or Recreational Athlete can establish No Significant Fault or Negligence , then the period of Inelig ibility shall be, at a minimum, a reprimand and no period of Ineligibility , and at a maximum, two (2) years Ineligibility , depending on the Protected Person or Recreational Athlete ’s degree of Fault.
10.6.2 Applicatio n of No Significant Fault or Negligence beyond the Application of Article 10.6.1 If an Athlete or other Person establishes in an individual case where Article 10.6.1 is not applicable that he or she bears No Significant Fault or Negligence , then, subject to further reduction or elimination as provided in Article 10.7, the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility may be reduced based on the Athlete or other Perso n’s degree of Fault , but the reduced period of Ineligibility may no t be less than one -half o f the period of Ineligibility otherwise applicable.
If the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility is a lifetime, the reduced period under this Article may be no less than eight (8) years.49 48 [Comment to Article 10.6.1.2: In order to receive the benefit of this Article, the Athlete or other Person must establish not only that the detected Prohibited Substance came from a Co ntaminated Product, but must also separately establish No Significant Fault or Negligence.
It should be further noted that Athletes are on notice that they take nutritional supplements at their own risk.
The sanction reduction based on No Significant Fault or Negligence has rarely been ap plied in Contaminated Product cases unless the Athlete has exercised a high level of caution before taking the Contaminated Product.
In assessing whether the Athlete can establish the source of the Prohibited Substance, it would, for example, be significan t for purposes of establishing whether the Athlete actually Used the Contaminated Product, whether the Athlete had declared the product which was subsequently determined to be contaminated on the Doping Control form.
This Article should not be extended b eyond products that have gone through some process of manufacturing.
Where an Adverse Analytical Finding results from environment contamination of a “non -product” such as tap water or lake water in circumstances where no re asonable person would expect any risk of an anti -doping rule violation, typically there would be No Fault or Negligence under Article 10.5.]
49 [Comment to Article 10.6.2: Article 10.6.2 may be applied to any anti -doping rule violation except those Articl es where intent is an element of the anti -doping rule violation (e.g., Article 2.5, 2.7, 2.8, 2.9 or 2.11) or an element of a particular sanction (e.g., Article 10.2.1) or a range of Ineligibility is already provided in an Article based on the Athlete or o ther Person’s degree o f Fault. ]
WAKO Anti-Doping Rules Page 41 of 81 10.7 Elimination, Reduction , or Sus pension of Period of Ineligibility or Other Consequences for Reasons Other than Fault 10.7.1 Substantial Assistance in Discovering or Establishing Code Violations50 10.7.1.1 WAKO may, prior to an appellate decision under Article 13 or the expiration of t he time to appeal, suspen d a part of the Consequences (other than Disqualification and mandatory Public Disclosure ) imposed in an individual case where the Athlete or other Person has provided Substantial Assistance to an Anti-Doping Organization , criminal authority or professiona l disciplinary body which results in: (i) the Anti-Doping Organization discovering or bringing forward an anti -doping rule violation by another Person ; or (ii) which results in a criminal or disciplinary body discovering or bringin g forward a criminal offe nse or the breach of professional rules committed by another Person and the information provided by the Person providing Substantial Assistance is made available to WAKO or other Anti-Doping Organization with Results Management responsibility ; or (iii) whi ch results in WADA initiating a proceeding against a Signatory , WADA -accredited laboratory, or Athlete passport management unit (as defined in the International Standard for Laboratories) for non -compliance with the Code , Internati onal Standard or Technica l Document ; or (iv) with the approval by WADA , which results in a criminal or disciplinary body bringing forward a criminal offense or the breach of pr ofessional or sport rules arising out of a sport integrity violation other than doping .
After an appellat e decision under Article 13 or the expiration of time to appeal, WAKO may only suspend a part of the otherwise applicable Consequences with the approva l of WADA .
The extent to which the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibilit y may be suspended shall be based on the seriousness of the anti -doping rule violation committed by the Athlete or other Person and the significance of the Substantial Assistance provided by the Athlete or other Person to the effort to eliminate doping in sport, non -compliance wit h the Code and/or sport integrity violations.
No more than three -quarters of the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility may be suspended.
If the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility is a lifetime, the non -suspended pe riod under this Article m ust be no less than eight (8) years.
For purposes of this paragraph, the otherwise applicable period 50 [Comment to Article 10.7.1: The cooperation of Athletes, Athlete Support Personnel and other Persons who acknowledge their mistakes and are willing to bring other anti -doping rule violations to light is important to clean sport.]
WAKO Anti-Doping Rules Page 42 of 81 of Ineligibility shall not include any period of Ineligibility that could be added under Article 10.9.3.2 of these Anti -Doping Rules.
If so requested by an Athlete or other Person who seeks to provide Substantial Assistance , WAKO shall allow the Athlete or other Person to provide the information to it subject to a Without Prejudice Agreement .
If the Athlete or other Person fails to continue to cooperate and to provide the complete and credible Substantial Assistance upon which a suspension of Consequences was based, WAKO shall reinstate the original Consequences .
If WAKO decides to reinstate suspended Consequences or decides not t o reinstate suspended Consequences , that decision may be appealed by any Person entitled to appeal under Article 13.
10.7.1.2 To further encourage Athlete s and other Person s to provide Substantial Assistance to Anti-Doping Organization s, at the request o f WAKO or at the request of the Athlete or other Person who has, or has been asserted to have, committed an anti -doping rule violation, or other violation of the Code , WADA may agree at any stage of the Results Management process, includi ng after an appell ate decision under Articl e 13, to what it considers to be an appropriate suspension of the otherwise -applicable period of Ineligibility and other Consequences .
In exceptional circumstances, WADA may agree to suspensions of the period of Ineligibility and o ther Consequences for Substantial Assistance greater than those otherwise provided in this Article, or even no period of Ineligibility , no mandatory Public Disclosure and/or no return of prize money or payment of fines or costs.
WADA ’s approval shall be su bject to reinstatement of Consequences , as otherwise provided in this Article.
Notwithstanding Article 13, WADA ’s decisions in the context of this Article 10.7.1.2 may not be appealed.
10.7.1.3 If WAKO suspends any part of an otherwise applicable sanctio n because of Substantial Assistance , then notice providing justification for the decision shall be provided to the other Anti-Doping Organizations with a right to appeal under Article 13.2.3 as pr ovided in Article 14.
In unique circumstances where WADA determines that it would be in the best interest of anti-doping, WADA may authorize WAKO to enter into appropriate confidentiality agreements limiting or delaying the disclosure of the Substantial As sistance agreement or the nature of Substantial Assistance being provided.
WAKO Anti-Doping Rules Page 43 of 81 10.7.2 Admission of an Anti -Doping Rule Violation in the Absence of Other Evidence Where an Athlete or other Person voluntarily admits the commission of an anti -doping rule viola tion before having received notice of a Sample collection which could establish an an ti-doping rule violation (or, in the case of an anti -doping rule violation other than Article 2.1, before receiving first notice of the admitted violation pursuant to Arti cle 7) and that admission is the only reliable evidence of t he violation at the time of admission, then the period of Ineligibility may be reduced, but not below one -half of the period of Ineligibility otherwise applicable.51 10.7.3 Application of Multiple Grounds for Reduction of a Sanction Where an Athlete or other Person establishes e ntitlement to reduction in sanction under more than one provision of Article 10.5, 10.6 or 10.7, before applying any reduction or suspension under Ar ticle 10.7, the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility shall be determined i n accordance with Article s 10.2, 10.3, 10.5, and 10.6.
If the Athlete or other Person establishes entitlement to a reduction or suspension of the period of Ineligibility unde r Article 10.7, then the period of Ineligibility may be reduced or suspended, but not below one -fourth of t he otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility .
10.8 Results Management Agreements 10.8.1 One (1) Year Reduction for Certain Anti -Doping Rule Violations Based on Early Admission and Acceptance of Sanction Where an Athlete or other Person , after bei ng notified by WAKO of a potential anti-doping rule violation that carries an asserted period of Ineligibility of four (4) or more years (including any period of Ineligibility asserted under Article 10.4), admits the violation and accepts the as serted peri od of Ineligibility no later than twenty (20) days after receiving notice of an anti -doping rule violation charge, the Athlete or other Person may receive a one (1) year reduction in the period of Ineligibility asserted by WAKO.
Wh ere the Athlet e or other Person receives the one (1) year reduction in the asserted period of Ineligibility under this Article 10.8.1, no further reduction in the asserted period of Ineligibility shall be allowed under any other Article.52 51 [Comment t o Article 1 0.7.2: This Article is intended to apply when an Athlete or other Person comes forward and admits to an anti -doping rule violation in circumstances where no Anti -Doping Organization is aware that an anti -doping rule violati on might have been com mitted.